SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Smt. Rinku Biswas Nee Bardhan vs Jayanta Kumar Biswas on 11 February, 2020




CO No. 3433 of 2019

Smt. Rinku Biswas nee Bardhan
Jayanta Kumar Biswas

Mr. Sukanta Chakraborty,
Mr. Anindya Halder,
… for the petitioner.

Mr. Meghnad Dutta,
Mr. Arindam Paul, … for the opposite party.

The wife/petitioner is the respondent of the Matrimonial Suit No. 207 of 2017 pending

before the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court- III Barrackpore, District. 24

Parganas (North).

The opposite party in the said matrimonial suit is seeking a decree of dissolution of his

marriage with the petitioner.

The parties were blessed with a female child, namely Hridya Biswas. The child is now in

the custody of the petitioner.


The petitioner in the said matrimonial suit filed an application for the maintenance

pendente lite of the only daughter of the parties at the rate of Rs. 22,000/-(Twenty Two

Thousand) per month.

The learned Trial Judge by the order impugned being the Order No. 12 dated April 06,

2019 has disposed of the said application by directing the opposite party to pay alimony

pendente lite at the rate of Rs. 5000/- (Five Thousand) per month to the petitioner on account of

maintenance of the said daughter of the parties.

The petitioner is aggrieved by the said order and is challenging the same on the ground

that the amount of maintenance does not commensurate with the income of the opposite party.

The petitioner claims that the salary of the opposite party being the Assistant Headmaster

of a Higher Secondary School is more than Rs. 55,000/- (Fifty Five Thousand) per month and he

has other sources of income.

The petitioner has independent income being an officer of United Bank of India.

The father and mother of the child both are in earning hands and as such are bound to

contribute to the maintenance of their child in proportion to their respective income as held by

the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Padmja Sharma vs. Ratanlal Sharma reported in

(2000) 4 SCC 266.

This Court, therefore, to ascertain the income of the parties directed them to produce their

respective income proofs.

Pursuant to the said direction the petitioner produces her salary certificates for the

months from November 2019 to January 2020 wherefrom it appears she earns more or less Rs.

55,000/- (Fifty Five Thousand) per month.


The opposite party produces his income certificate issued by the headmaster of the school

where he works as an assistant teacher. It appears from the said document that the take home

salary of the opposite party is Rs. 66,540.00/-(Sixty Six Thousand Five Hundred Forty) per


The aforesaid documents are taken on record.

Having regard to the income of the parties this Court is of the opinion that a sum of Rs.

20,000/- (Twenty Thousand) per month would be just and proper amount for the maintenance of

the only daughter of the parties.

In view of the mandate of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as declared in the aforementioned

Report the said amount of maintenance is required to be shared by the parties.

The petitioner shall contribute a sum of Rs. 8000/- (Eight Thousand) per month and the

opposite party shall contribute a sum of Rs. 12,000/- (Twelve Thousand) per month to form the

corpus of an amount of Rs. 20,000/- (Twenty Thousand) per month for the maintenance of the

said child.

The parties are required to contribute their respective share T the rate directed above in

the said corpus from the date of the order impugned i.e. June 20, 2019.

The petitioner shall open a child account in the name of the daughter of the parties with

any nationalized bank and shall communicate the details of the said bank account to the opposite


The parties shall deposit their said respective contribution with the said bank account

within tenth day of each succeeding month for which it falls due. The arrear maintenance

amount shall be deposited by the parties in the said bank account by four equal monthly

instalments according to their respective share in the said contribution. First of such instalments

shall be deposited on or before February 29, 2020.

The opposite party is complaining that his access to his daughter is being denied by the

petitioner. The allegation is disputed and denied by the petitioner.

Mr. Chakraborty learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that his

client never objected such access.

The opposite party being the father is entitled to have access to his daughter which is

otherwise necessary for the welfare and wellbeing of the said child.

Mr. Partha Pratim Roy, learned advocate of this Court agrees to provide a place at his

residence for the purpose of said access.

The parties offer remuneration to Mr. Roy which Mr. Roy refuses to accept.

In view of such, the petitioner shall produce the child at the residence of Mr. Roy at 31/2,

Rajarhat Road, Kolkata- 700 059 on 2nd Sunday of each month from 11-30 A.M. (Morning)

for the purpose of access of the opposite party and his family members for two hours.

The aforesaid visitation for the month of February 2020 shall be held at the said venue on

February 22, 2020.

The opposite party shall pay a sum of Rs. 1000/-(One Thousand) to the petitioner on each

day of the said access on account of conveyance charges.

In the event of his any inconvenience, Mr. Roy is entitled to reschedule the time and date

of the said visitation upon notice to the learned advocates representing the parties either before

this Court or before the learned Court below.

The parties shall co-operate with each other for smooth implementation of this order.

With the above, C.O. 3433 of 2019 is disposed of. No order as to costs.

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties

subject to compliance of all requisite formalities.

(Biswajit Basu, J.)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2022 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation